Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Paradigmatic Assumptions of Disciplinary Research on Gender Disparities: The Case of Occupational Sex Segregation

  • Feminist Forum Commentary
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lips (2012) deconstructs the standard methodological approaches to understanding the gender wage gap and shows that issues of gender pervade nearly every assumption of these models. In this commentary, we call attention to paradigmatic assumptions and theoretical approaches of the three most relevant social-science disciplines that deal with a parallel issue—occupational sex segregation—to demonstrate that scientific progress is facilitated by transparency in our disciplinary approaches to addressing gender disparities. Accordingly, the neoclassical economic approach to occupational sex segregation posits, among other things, self-selection in the development of human capital, such as choice of college major, as well as women’s tradeoffs in marriage vs. work-related capital as the drivers of occupational disparities. Progressive sociological approaches, such as feminist and Marxist sociology eschew these “supply-side” explanations in favor of examining “demand-side” explanations, particularly social forces that shape both employers’ beliefs about desirable worker attributes as well as the institutional structures that are created to support these views. Psychological approaches tend to address both supply-side (e.g., vocational preferences) and demand-side (e.g., stereotypes and bias) explanations. The aim of this commentary is to elucidate the paradigmatic approaches that each of the major social-science disciplines takes in understanding gender inequity issues in order to advance integrated research on these important social topics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anker, R. (1997). Theories of segregation by sex: An overview. International Labour Review, 136, 315–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badgett, M. V. L., & Folbre, N. (2003). Job gendering: Occupational choice and the marriage market. Industrial Relations, 42, 270–298. doi:10.1111/1468-232X.00290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, D. C., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Saying no to being uprooted: The impact of family and gender on willingness to relocate. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 131–149. doi:10.1348/096317905X53174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181–198. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. N., & Bielby, W. T. (1985). Organizational barriers to gender equality: Sex segregation of jobs and opportunities. In A. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course (pp. 233–251). New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of sociology, 6, 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, B. R. (2007). Discrimination through the economist’s eye. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 213–234). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A., & Berk, S. F. (1983). Supply-side sociology of the family: The challenge of the new home economics. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90–98. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N. (1984). A woman’s place is with other women: Sex segregation within organizations. In B. F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation nin the workplace: Trends, explanations, and remedies (pp. 27–55). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7–23. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.24286161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, K. R. (2006). Evolved sex differences and occupational segregation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 143–162. doi:10.1002/job.349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L 102–166.

  • Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Principles of political economy: A comparative approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507–516. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Haas, S., & Timmerman, G. (2010). Sexual harassment in the context of double male dominance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 717–734. doi:10.1080/09541440903160492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, E. L. (1994). Dimensions of faculty stress: A recent survey. Review of Higher Education, 17, 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorius, S.F., & Alwin, D.F. (2010). The global development of egalitarian beliefs—A decomposition of trends in the nature and structure of gender ideology (Report 10–723). Retrieved from Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research website: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr10-723.pdf

  • Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review, 20, 200–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (1982). The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational sex segregation. The Journal of Human Resources, 17, 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166. doi:10.1177/089124321036147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace (pp. 155–188). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 419–441. doi:10.1177/106907279700500404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, E. D. (2008). Marriage and career: The dynamic decisions of young men. Journal of Human Capital, 2, 337–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/a0015575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gronau, R. (1988). Sex-related wage differentials and women’s interrupted careers-the chicken or the egg? Journal of Labor Economics, 6, 277–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Institute for Women's Policy Research Briefing Paper, IWPR C377. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved from Institute for Women's Policy Research website: http://www.iwpr.org.

  • Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, J. R. (1987). Education and the national economy. New York: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, K., & Clarkberg, M. (2005). Women’s employment patterns during early parenthood: A group-based trajectory analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 222–239. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00017.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 994–1012. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 5899–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, S. (2005). Is "discrimination" necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 269–287. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 78, 931–949. doi:10.1093/sf/78.3.931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Towards a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Psychology, 45, 79–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111–2.

  • Lips, H. M. (2012). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations: Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of Human Capital models. Sex Roles, this issue.. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.

  • Marshall, M. R., & Jones, C. H. (1990). Childbearing sequence and the career development of women administrators in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 531–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. (1962). Labor force participation of married women. In: H. G. Lewis (Ed). Aspects of Labor Economics (pp. 63–97). Universities National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Series No 14. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

  • Mincer, J., & Polachek, S. (1974). Family investments in human capital: Earnings of women. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S76–S108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moller, S., & Li, H. (2009). Parties, unions, policies and occupational sex segregation in the United States. Social Forces, 87, 1529–1560. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. A. (2008). Major matters: A comparison of the within-major gender pay gap across college majors for early-career graduates. Industrial Relations, 47, 625–650. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00538.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex difference in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46, 277–307. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1641-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31–59. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polachek, S. W. (1975). Differences in expected post-school investment as a determinant of market wage differentials. International Economic Review, 16, 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, H. B., & Hermsen, J. M. (1996). Gender differences in the determinants of over-night work-related travel among employed Americans. Work & Occupations, 23(1), 87–115. doi:10.1177/0730888496023001005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, J. A. (1999). Occupational gender segregation: Trends and explanations. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 611–624. doi:10.1016/S1062-9769(99)00029-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queneau, H. (2010). Trends in occupational sex segregation in the USA: Evidence from detailed data. The Empirical Economics Letters, 9, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. F. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. (1990). Job queues, gender queues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386. doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson, K. E. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44–62. doi:10.1177/000312240907400103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & England, P. (2007). Sociological approaches to sex discrimination in employment. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 189–211). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328. doi:10.1177/0146167200263001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shauman, K. A. (2006). Occupational sex segregation and the earnings of occupations: What causes the link among college-educated workers? Social Science Research, 35, 577–619. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, A. (2002). Marxist sociology and humanist sociology: Diversity, intersections, and convergence. The American Sociologist, 33, 111–126. doi:10.1007/s12108-002-1023-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83–114). Mehwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The source and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: IRL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, H. L., & Einbender, S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 712–723. doi:10.2307/256127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vagg, P. R., Spielberger, C. D., & Wasala, C. F. (2002). Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in the workplace. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 243–261. doi:10.1023/A:1019964331348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeden, K. A. (1998). Revisiting occupational sex segregation in the United States, 1910–1990: Results from a log-linear approach. Demography, 35, 475–487. doi:10.2307/3004015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Portions of this comment are based on a longer chapter to appear in Diversity Ideologies, edited by Kecia M. Thomas, Victoria C. Plaut & Ny Mia Tran. Taylor-Francis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford St, LD 124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202-3275, USA

    Margaret S. Stockdale

  2. Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Campus Box 1121, Edwardsville, IL, 62026, USA

    Joel T. Nadler

Authors
  1. Margaret S. Stockdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joel T. Nadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret S. Stockdale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stockdale, M.S., Nadler, J.T. Paradigmatic Assumptions of Disciplinary Research on Gender Disparities: The Case of Occupational Sex Segregation. Sex Roles 68, 207–215 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0228-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0228-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation